Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Robert Piascik]

Just saw this article:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/shure_announces_availability_of_ulx-d_qlx-d_wireless_systems_in_vhf_frequen/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=content

What are the implications here? My limited knowledge of wireless was that VHF was inferior to UHF which is why all the companies switched back in the 80's or so. Why would Shure return to VHF? Is it cheaper? Is it better? Please educate me, thanks!

[David Sturzenbecher]

Just saw this article:

http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/shure_announces_availability_of_ulx-d_qlx-d_wireless_systems_in_vhf_frequen/?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=content

What are the implications here? My limited knowledge of wireless was that VHF was inferior to UHF which is why all the companies switched back in the 80's or so. Why would Shure return to VHF? Is it cheaper? Is it better? Please educate me, thanks!

The VHF spectrum is relatively safe at this point, which makes it very appealing for users expecting a long term investment.

[Pete Erskine]

What are the implications here? My limited knowledge of wireless was that VHF was inferior to UHF which is why all the companies switched back in the 80's or so. Why would Shure return to VHF? Is it cheaper? Is it better? Please educate me, thanks!

VHF and UHF are just frequency bands and the wireless work just as well in both.  VHF has a longer antenna and older wireless had very long antennas.  Newer systems have ways to minimize this on the TX but the RX still has an antenna that is about 30" tall and 12" deep for a directional fin.


Now that the UHF spectrum is being reallocated by the government, VHF has become interesting again, even with the big antenna problem.  The FCC has already sold off frequencies above 700 MHZ and in a couple of years the wireless above 600 MHZ will be mostly gone too.  More needs to be squeezed in.

[Scott Holtzman]

VHF and UHF are just frequency bands and the wireless work just as well in both.  VHF has a longer antenna and older wireless had very long antennas.  Newer systems have ways to minimize this on the TX but the RX still has an antenna that is about 30" tall and 12" deep for a directional fin.


Now that the UHF spectrum is being reallocated by the government, VHF has become interesting again, even with the big antenna problem.  The FCC has already sold off frequencies above 700 MHZ and in a couple of years the wireless above 600 MHZ will be mostly gone too.  More needs to be squeezed in.

Peter,

I think that for the lower end of the spectrum was us lounge dwellers live VHF is a compelling option and a great value prop.  As you mentioned there is not a lot of spectrum, but the channel count in these type of gigs is low. 

The better penetration of the VHF band is a plus and the clear channels mean less of a chance of interference.

Years ago I picked up some Samson Broadcsat series diversity radios.  They have a SM58 head.  The receivers were synthesized but the transmitters had some really crappy crystals that drifted all the time.  I got good at zero beating them in the field if they got off too far in transit but finally found some decent replacements.  Had to add some trimmer caps to load them properly but these things are rock solid from freezing to room temp.  I have rented them so many times, they are built like brick shithouses.

I use a VHF dipole 1/4 wave mounted on top of a little ground plane I put on a mic stand at front of house.  Got the whole kit with the RX multicoupler.

I am a big fan of VHF high band.

[Henry Cohen]

My limited knowledge of wireless was that VHF was inferior to UHF which is why all the companies switched back in the 80's or so. Why would Shure return to VHF? Is it cheaper? Is it better? Please educate me, thanks!

About the same time OEM's moved to UHF due to less frequency band congestion, there came along improved circuit designs (the phased locked loop being the most glaring exampe), more advanced manufacturing capabilities and better off-the-shelf components available to the OEM's. Products improved not because of being in UHF, but rather because they were more advanced products. To paraphrase Scott in the other VHF thread, it may be a return to old territory, but it's with a big bag of tricks learned during the past couple of decades up in UHF. The few VHF products on the market now, or in beta over the last year or so, have proven to be very viable and well performing offerings.

[Jerome Malsack]

With those bags of tricks will be the use of AD/DA conversions.  Digital Wireless in VHF will mean that the same channel counts in the UHF will be brought down to the VHF world and My older EV MR 2500 units will be retired and six digital systems will be able to us the same bandwidth of one older 2500 unit. 

Another trick will be the antenna distribution.  I will not need a separate distro because some of these units are providing this built into the system.  Chaining receivers together to share one antenna pair. 

network cable com with a computer to monitor systems and operation. 

I used to place the receivers close to the stage for best signal but would have no way to monitor the receivers.
with the network cable and computer. I can monitor the receivers, signals, and audio output levels. 

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/site/af9d127e26abf498/index.html

[Keith Broughton]

Any idea as to the frequency range these will be in?

[Brad Harris]

Any idea as to the frequency range these will be in?

I'd bet by the stated 42MHz tuning range from the PR, it'll be in the upper VHF from 174-216 (TV7-13)

BRad

[Keith Broughton]

I'd bet by the stated 42MHz tuning range from the PR, it'll be in the upper VHF from 174-216 (TV7-13)

BRad

This is an interesting development.
I am advising on an RF purchase for a company and this might be the way to go.
Hopefully pricing will be similar to the existing ULXD line.

[Ike Zimbel]

VHF and UHF are just frequency bands and the wireless work just as well in both.  VHF has a longer antenna and older wireless had very long antennas.  Newer systems have ways to minimize this on the TX but the RX still has an antenna that is about 30" tall and 12" deep for a directional fin.

I had a look at these (VHF ULX-D's) the other day at NAB. They are identical to the uhf units except that they are slightly longer to accommodate the longer antennas required. WWB-6 has been tweaked to work in the vhf band. As well, Shure has new vhf antenna distros and antennas, so when this gear hits the store shelves, it will be ready to implement as a complete system, just like the uhf product. I was impressed.
iz

[ProSoundWeb Community]